State Of Louisiana v. Kian Tate

STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2023 KW 0748

VERSUS

KIAN TATE OCTOBER 23, 2023

In Re: Kian Tate, applying for supervisory writs, 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge,
No. 09- 09- 0319.

BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator failed to include
a file dated copy of the motion for appeal, a copy of any
motions filedrequesting documents, the district court' s ruling
on the motions, if any, and any other portions of the district
court record that might support the claims raised in the writ

application. Supplementation of this writ application and/ or an
application for rehearing will not be considered. See Uniform
Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4- 9. Any
future filing on this issue should include the entire contents

of this application, the missing items noted above, and a copy
of this ruling.

It is noted that as an indigent inmate, relator is entitled
to receive certain court documents, such as the guilty plea

transcript, the bill of information or indictment, the
commitment papers, the court minutes for various portions of the
trial, and the minutes of his sentencing, free of charge without
the necessity of establishing a particularized need. See State
ex rel. Simmons v. State, 93- 0275 ( La. 12/ 16/ 94), 647 So. 2d
1094, 1095 ( per curiam). As to all other documents, an indigent

inmate has the constitutional right to free copies only in those
instances in which he shows that denial of the request will

deprive him of an adequate opportunity to present his claims

fairly. Meeting that constitutional threshold requires a

showing of a particularized need. An inmate therefore cannot

make a showing of particularized need absent a properly filed
application for postconviction relief, which sets out specific

claims of constitutional errors the
requiring requested

documentation for support. See State ex rel. Bernard v.

Criminal District Court Section " J", 94- 2247 ( La. 4/ 28/ 95), 653
So. 2d 1174, 1175 ( per curiam). See also State ex rel. McKnight
v. State, 98- 2258 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 3/ 98), 742 So. 2d 894,
895 ( per curiam).

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
n I

EPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT